Bessler Wheel

Subject: Fwd: AW: Bessler Wheel
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:06:39 EDT

Good point, I will look into this.

The question which perhaps can be answered without detailed calculation is whether the free-falling part of mass motion in the Bessler Wheel is part of the system or not, i.e. if we have a closed (conservative) system or not.

Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 31. August 2008 08:03 An: ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; geesquared] at [gmail.com; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; karel.jelinek] at [gmail.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; aje] at [warfplc.com; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; live-ste] at [online.no; rpmc_6] at [hotmail.com; jackiandoli] at [googlemail.com Betreff: Bessler Wheel

There is a website www://www.orffyre.com/overview.html on the Bessler wheel. This site claims that the wheel was accepted by von Leibniz and by Karl, Margrave of Hesse Kassel, who was the only person to see its workings. There is an animation on this site that shows three slings (centrifugal force generators), arranged like a triskelion. My guess is that this is supposed to represent the Bessler wheel. Initial external net torque is needed to generate centrifugal force. If the axis is without an friction, and if there is a complete vacuum, as in deep space, an object put into rotational motion by an applied torque (initial impulse) will continue to rotate at a constant angular momentum. In a triskelion arrangement on the surface of the earth, the force of gravity is parallel to the centrifugal force of one sling, antiparallel to the second and perpendicular to the third, there is also friction on the wheel bearings and air resistance. So a net torque must always be present to overcome these. In a water wheel for example, the water from a stream gives a constant torque. The Bessler wheel is a wheel without any external torque. In the animation by Chris Pelkie and myself on this site (www.aias.us), a net external torque was generated on each molecule of a 108 molecule ensemble, so the molecules can be see to be spinning in the animation. Torque is force multiplied by arm. Newtonian torque is measured in the laboratory frame and is the time derivative of angular momentum in the laboratory frame. The Newtonian torque in the lab frame is the sum of the torque as measured in the molecule fixed frame plus the vector product of angular velocity and angular momentum in the laboratory frame. So the torque in the molecule fixed frame is the torque in the lab frame minus omega vector product J (see Marion and Thornton or any good text on classical dynamics). These are the usual rules of classical dynamics, and they should be applied to the Bessler wheel. Unfortunately, there is no design available of the Bessler wheel, only guesswork.

Bessler Wheel

Subject: Bessler Wheel
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:03:12 EDT

There is a website www://www.orffyre.com/overview.html on the Bessler wheel. This site claims that the wheel was accepted by von Leibniz and by Karl, Margrave of Hesse Kassel, who was the only person to see its workings. There is an animation on this site that shows three slings (centrifugal force generators), arranged like a triskelion. My guess is that this is supposed to represent the Bessler wheel. Initial external net torque is needed to generate centrifugal force. If the axis is without an friction, and if there is a complete vacuum, as in deep space, an object put into rotational motion by an applied torque (initial impulse) will continue to rotate at a constant angular momentum. In a triskelion arrangement on the surface of the earth, the force of gravity is parallel to the centrifugal force of one sling, antiparallel to the second and perpendicular to the third, there is also friction on the wheel bearings and air resistance. So a net torque must always be present to overcome these. In a water wheel for example, the water from a stream gives a constant torque. The Bessler wheel is a wheel without any external torque. In the animation by Chris Pelkie and myself on this site (_www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) ), a net external torque was generated on each molecule of a 108 molecule ensemble, so the molecules can be see to be spinning in the animation. Torque is force multiplied by arm. Newtonian torque is measured in the laboratory frame and is the time derivative of angular momentum in the laboratory frame. The Newtonian torque in the lab frame is the sum of the torque as measured in the molecule fixed frame plus the vector product of angular velocity and angular momentum in the laboratory frame. So the torque in the molecule fixed frame is the torque in the lab frame minus omega vector product J (see Marion and Thornton or any good text on classical dynamics). These are the usual rules of classical dynamics, and they should be applied to the Bessler wheel. Unfortunately, there is no design available of the Bessler wheel, only guesswork.

Is there ever a "Physics Establishment"

Subject: Is there ever a “Physics Establishment”
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:33:00 EDT

A physics establishment cannot exist in logic, because in the last analysis physics is governed by nature, not by transient human exigency. The establishment can only exist insofar as it is allowed to exist in the psyche of free thinking sceintists. It disintegrates in the face of logic and comparison with experimental data if it does not accept mathematical truth or the way that nature shows things as they are. So any nonsense such as asking secretaries to blacklist new ideas will collapse. So scientists should not be hindered by the feeling that they are on the outside of things, often they are central to progress. The latter takes place while the establishment withers away with time. So there are no heretics in nature any more than one species is more heretical than another. Heresy be definition is a refusal to accept dogma, not a refusal to accept logic.

Civil List Scientist

Paper by Tajmar et al.

Subject: Fwd: AW: Paper by Tajmar et al.
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:05:10 EDT

This paper raises many questions. They report on a „parity violation effect“ that the result was pronounced in the clockwise direction of ring rotation only. What does that mean? Does earth gravity play a role? Can such parity violation be inferred by SCR? I would not expect such effects from the gravitomagnetic field alone.

Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 30. August 2008 13:57 An: ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; geesquared] at [gmail.com; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; karel.jelinek] at [gmail.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; aje] at [warfplc.com; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; martin.tajmar] at [arcs.ac.at Betreff: Paper by Tajmar et al.

This may be found by googling “Tajmar arxiv” and is

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf

“Search for Frame Dragging Like Signals Close to Spinning Superconductors” by Tajmar et al., 18th International Conference on General Relativity adn Gravitation, Sydney, Australia, July 2007. Their Eq. (5) is essentially the same as the result obtained in paper 117 on http://www.aias.us. Tajmar et al report a frame dragging result eighteen orders of magnitude greater than this result. In Gravity Probe B it was below their resolution of 97 milliarcesconds a year. The Gravity Probe B experiment ha now been discontinued. In ECE theory the B sub go of Tajmar et al. is denoted cap omega. Tajmar et al. also report a parity violating effect. It is conceivable that the eighteen order of magnitude discrepancy between Tajmar et al. and Gravity Probe B is due to spin connection resonance. I attach the final version of paper 117 for Tajmar et al. Spin connection resonance mechanisms that amplified B in previous work on http://www.aias.us may conceivably be responsible for amplifying cap omega. There is no doubt following papers 93 ff. that the Einstein field equation is fundmanetally incorrect, by now a well accepted result. The ECE theory gives the same result as the Tajmar eq. (5). Spin connection resonance in ECE theory may give a qualitative explanation of the eighteen order of magnitude discrepancy reported here by Tajmar et al. Some scientists reject the Tajmar work outright as artifact, but I am keeping an open mind about it.

Civil List Scientist

It will be interesting if Tajmar et al. respond to paper 117. I would not expect parity violation to occur, but I try to keep open minded about these results until they are or are not proven to be artifacts. I can however proceed to develop spin connection resonance equations.

Consequences of Discarding Torsion

Subject: Fwd: AW: Consequences of Discarding Torsion
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:00:32 EDT

Good idea! This will lead to the further contradiction in the torsionless geometry:

D ^ R tilde not equal to zero

when

T tilde = 0 and D ^ T tilde = 0

This could also be shown by computer algebra of all solutions of the Einstein equation. I wil lwrite these out in tensor notation. The reason for this is that (paper 88):

D ^ (D ^ T) := D ^ (R ^ q)

becomes

D ^ R = 0

when T is zero. This is what the standard physics calls the second Bianchi identity. All line elements that are exact solutions of the Einstein equation should obey the second Bianchi identity by construction. We know that R tilde ^ q is not zero (paper 93), so:

D ^ (R tilde ^ q) is not zero

i.e.

D ^ R tilde is not zero

but

D ^ ( D ^ T tilde )

is zero for all solutions of the Einstein field equation.

One could probably derive a fourth identity:

D ^ (D ^ T tilde) := D ^ (R tilde ^ q)

I do not know if it is of any usefulness.

Horst

—–Ursprüngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 30. August 2008 08:09 An: ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; geesquared] at [gmail.com; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; karel.jelinek] at [gmail.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; aje] at [warfplc.com; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; live-ste] at [online.no; rpmc_6] at [hotmail.com; jackiandoli] at [googlemail.com Betreff: Consequences of Discarding Torsion

The neglect of torsion is the arbitrary assumption (initially made for convenience):

T = 0 – (1)

So the Cartan geometry of the previous note reduces to

D ^ q = 0 (2)

R = D ^ omega (3)

D ^ T := R ^ q = 0 (4)

Without going into any details, it is seen that this is a drastic assumption, and there is no justification for it. The Bianchi identity reduces to

R ^ q = 0 (5)

an equation that was first given by Ricci and Levi-Civita. For some reason it is known in the standard physics as the “first Bianchi identity”. All of Einsteinian general relativity is based on this incorrect geometry. The correct Bianchi identity is given by Cartan:

D ^ T := R ^ q (6)

and neither side of eq. (6) is zero in general. During the course of development of ECE theory (2003 to present) two more identities have been highlighted. These both derive staightforwardly from eq. (6). They are:

1) The dual identity

D ^ T tilde := R tilde ^ q (7)

2) The derivative identity

D ^ (D ^ T) := D ^ (R ^ q) (8)

Here tilde means the well known Hodge dual transformation in four dimensions. The geometry used by Einstein is:

R tilde ^ q =? 0 (9)

and

D ^ R =? 0 (10)

Eq. (10) is known in the standard physics as “the second Bianchi identity”. It is however an incorrect equation, so the =? sign is used in eq. (10). Eq. (9) is also incorrect. The Einstein field equation merely claims that the incorrect eq. (10) is proportional to a quantity in physics. So the whole Einsteinian general relativity is irretrievably incorrect. This has actually been suspeced for ninety years bu tis shown with great clarity by eq. (7) (see papers 93, 95, 100 and 117, and “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”). The ECE theory derives all the equations of physics using the correct geometry due to Cartan. All this is easy to understand, and this major progress in modern physics is being deliberately ignored by the standard faction, who are merely transient dogmatists of no real significance in the history of science.

Civil List Scientist

Quantum Mechanics from ECE Theory

Subject: Quantum Mechanics from ECE Theory
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:32:10 EDT

This has found a geometrical basis in the tetrad postulate of Cartan geometry. The tetrad postulate is the direct result of the fact that the complete vector field is independent of its coordinate system. Thus, quantum mechanics originates in the same geometry as the classical equations of physics. The Copenhagen interpretation has been abandoned on philosophical and experimental grounds. All the wave equations of physics have been derived form a generally covariant wave equation based on the covariant derivative of the tetrad postulate. In various limits this gives well known wave equations, including the Dirac, Proca, Schroedinger, and Weinberg equations. The Dirac spinor is a 2 x 2 tetrad in column form. special relativistic wave equations are limits of generally covariant wave equations. Much othe rprogress has been made as recorded on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) .

1-29Aug08 Rest of World

Subject: 1-29Aug08 Rest of World
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:22:58 EDT

AMC Australia, Univ Melbourne, UNB Brazil, UNICAMP Brazil, USP Brazil, Canadian net (Sherbrooke, Toronto*, Montreal*, Quebec, Sudbury, Windsor, CCRA ADRC Gov. Canada, Mcgill, NCF Canada, Queens, UO Cuba, PRL India, ITESM Mexico, UMICH Mexico, UMP Malaysia, TACSUP Peru.

1-29Aug08 Europe Feedback

Subject: 1-29Aug08 Europe Feedback
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:57:05 EDT

Univ Basel, Charles Univ Prague, GBH Hannover, Siemens Company, TU Clausthal, Univ Bremen, RUC Denmark, Netsonic Finland, Univ Savoie France, PGSM Hungary, Hebrew Univ Jerusalem, INFN Ferrara, ICTP Trieste, MPM Russia, LTH Sweden, UU Sweden, DZS Slovenia, SPP Slovakia, Chenmistry CArdiff, Cardiff, Physics Liverpool, Nottiongham*, Paisley.

15-29Aug08 Selected USA Feedback

Subject: 15-29Aug08 Selected USA Feedback
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:38:51 EDT

As usual this is a small sample of selected feedback, * denoting multiple visits, these include one from the US Dept. of State.

Brigham Young, Colorado College, Texas A and M, Temple, UC Irvine, UI Chicago, UI Urbana Champaign, U Nevada Reno, Washington, US Food and Drug Admin., US Social Security, US Department of State, Lucie County, Robins Airforce Base*, NMCI Navy*, AT and T, General electric, Hewlett Packard, Motorola, Rockwell Collins, The Aerospace Corporation.

Feedback Activity for www.aias.us

Subject: 1-29Aug08: Feedback Activity for http://www.aias.us
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:21:38 EDT

I will give the final returns on 1st Sept. For these 29 days there were 49,302 hits from 7,460 visitors, downloading 521 documents and 3.857 gigabytes from 73 countries, led by USA, Britain, Germany, Canada, France, Taiwan, South Africa, ……. All ECE papers and educational articles and books were read and most Omnia Opera papers. The most read ECE source papers by number were:

45, 94, 116, 107, 115, 117, 21, 2, 63, 93, 1, 89, 103, 113, 61, 76, 12, 90, 7, 109, 112, 114, 93plots, 11, 43, 92, 15, 3, 105, 108, 5, 10, 111, 19, 56, 100a, 106, 110, 14, 23, 67, 8, 16, 37, 47, 68, 9, 100b, 104, 13, …………….

The most read educational articles and books were : Space Energy (Spanish), ECE (Spanish), Johnson Magnets, filtered statistics, Crystal Spheres, ECE and Spacetime, ECE Engineering Model, Galaxies (Spanish), ECE (English), Black hole criticism, Space Energy, Galaxies, Bruhn refutation, Flaw in Einstein Field Equation, Workshop overview, Edyn3, Cosmo7, Royal Decree, Workshop History, ECE (French), Sp. Dev., Numerical Solutions, ECE Model (Italian), Armorial Bearings, Crothers1, ECE German, Crothers2, Metric manifolds, Hehl refutation, ………………